America’s “power elite,” placed at the head of increasingly centralized systems of commerce, culture, and governance, prides itself on fostering a pluralistic attitude, enabling it to rally the various factions dividing our society behind reasonable consensuses on a plethora of issues.
How justified is that pride?
Consider the resources our diversity-mouthing despots are now squandering to purge the public sphere of anyone supportive of our former president; anyone who doubts the impeccability of our recent elections; anyone who questions the justice of reverse discrimination; anyone who objects to opening girls’ sports (and locker rooms) to boys . . .
The list could be extended ad infinitum, with fresh additions each day.
To put it mildly, a ruling class this desperate to pollute the hearts, minds, and hopes of half the citizens, while smothering those of the other half, is anything but impartial in its outlook.
With characteristic insight, R. R. Reno reflects on how recent controversies have exposed a double standard that has plagued “our liberal-progressive establishment” since it consolidated its power around World War II.
The establishment poses as a coalition of centrist liberals and conservatives, working together to moderate the demands of extremists on the left and the right.
In truth, this elite is heavily skewed in one direction. Liberals consistently paint the radical left in sympathetic terms, while reluctantly accepting the need to advance its agenda piecemeal. Meanwhile, these fleeting truces with sanity are blamed on conservative elites, whose willingness to play “bad cop” is rewarded with epithets such as “Neanderthal.”
As for anyone farther to the right—let them not so much as be named among you, to paraphrase a genuine leader whose like we are sorely in need of today.
As a result of such charades, our managerial class has presided these seven decades over the gradual implementation of a semi-Marxist revolution. Always careful to preserve the interests of its upper ranks, this class has been increasingly willing to sow discord and dysfunction in the soil of the middle and lower classes whose welfare it claims to serve, even as it effects their gradual enslavement.
The fruits of such leadership are plain: a country “plagued with deaths of despair, substance abuse, family breakdown, de-industrialization, futile foreign conflicts, a loss of transcendence, and a legitimate fear that our ruling elites are not loyal to their country.”
In a judgment I find to be understated, Reno concludes that “counterrevolutionary anger” is “well founded.”
To be sure, anger and extremism, coming from any direction, are no sound basis for government. Is the alternative any better, though, when those who ought to be refining and enlarging the public views insist instead on fanning one set of flames with flattery and fueling another with oppression?
If we expect to see anything in our future but escalating chaos and confusion, we had best consider where to find some new management.
What do you think? Please comment, subscribe, & forward to friends!